Declaration Of Helen J. Hodges In Support Of Lead Counsel's ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2. Motions to Strike, Motions for Certification Under §1292(b) and Writs of Mandamus 91. At the same time some defendants were moving to dismiss, others were filing various motions including motions to strike portions of the complaint, motions to certify issues for appeal and writs to wrest control of the litigation from the district court. 92. On May 8, 2002, defendant Kenneth L. Lay filed a motion to strike the declaration of Scott D. Hakala (Docket No. 730), which Lead Plaintiff had appended to Lead Plaintiff’s Consolidated Complaint. Lay contended that the declaration should be stricken because it was not a “written instrument” with the meaning of Rule 10(c); it would require an evidentiary hearing and would interfere with the discovery stay provision of the PSLRA; and would not relieve Lead Plaintiff of the pleading burden under the PSLRA. Lay also contended that the declaration was inadmissible. On May 28, 2002, plaintiffs filed a response to Lay’s Motion (Docket No. 800), which argued that the declaration could properly be considered on a motion to dismiss, and contributed to a finding that the Lead Plaintiff’s had satisfied their pleading burden. The Court refused to strike the declaration, but declined to consider it in ruling on a motion to dismiss. See 8/9/02 Order re Denying Lay’s Motion to Strike Declaration of Scott Hakala (“8/9/02 Strike Order”) (Docket No. 996) at 12. 93. On June 10, 2002, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion to strike (Docket No. 838) the Officer Defendants’ Joint Disclosure Brief, on the ground that it presented material not properly considered on a motion to dismiss. On June 24, 2002, the Officer Defendants filed a Response of Officer Defendants to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Joint Disclosure Brief and Reply to Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendants’ Argument (Docket No. 919), which contended that the Joint Disclosure Brief should be considered in ruling on the defendants’ motions to dismiss. While the Court declined to strike the pleading, it noted that it would disregard any improper matter in ruling on a motion to dismiss. See 8/9/02 Strike Order at 13. - 52 -
94. On September 26, 2002, Lead Plaintiff filed a Joint Motion to Enter Order Establishing a Document Depository (Docket No. 1041). The Court granted the motion. See 10/30/02 Order Establishing Document Depository (Docket No. 1116) at 2. 95. On September 27, 2002, defendants Belfer, Blake, Chan, Duncan, Foy, Gramm, Jaedicke, LeMaistre, Mendelsohn, Meyer, Pereira, Savage, Wakeham, Walker, Winokur, Urquhart and Mark-Jusbasche filed a motion to strike the class action complaint in the Pulsifer action (Docket No. 1042). These defendants argued that this complaint was an unauthorized amendment to the Newby complaint. Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on September 17, 2002 (Docket No. 1089), which argued that the Pulsifer complaint was filed to the toll the statute of limitations, and amendment would not present any prejudice to defendants. The Court denied the motion to strike, citing the arguments made by Lead Plaintiff. See 3/12/03 Memorandum and Order Regarding Enron Outside Director Defendants’ Motions (Docket No. 1269) at 59. 96. On October 15, 2002, the Bank Defendants filed the Banks Defendants’ Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and Request for Expedited Consideration (Docket No. 1080), which argued to delay the briefing regarding Lead Plaintiff’s motion for class certification until defendants had been given the opportunity to conduct certain discovery. Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion (Docket No. 1112) on October 25, 2002, arguing that the discovery sought was not necessary for determination of the class certification motion, and that the Court had discretion to deny the Bank Defendants’ request. The Court granted the Bank Defendants’ motion. See 10/28/02 Order Granting Bank Defendants’ Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (Docket No. 1113) at 3. 97. On December 12, 2002, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the pretrial scheduling order (Docket No. 1189). Lead Plaintiff argued that because of the discovery stay in place, it might not have sufficient time to meet the Court’s deadline for joining new parties. The - 53 -
Page 1 and 2:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHE
Page 3 and 4:
2. The Parties Establish a Document
Page 5 and 6: I, HELEN J. HODGES, declare as foll
Page 7 and 8: • Reviewed over 70 million pages
Page 9 and 10: 6. The above recoveries were based
Page 11 and 12: gathered and which the banks and En
Page 13 and 14: 14. In this endeavor, Coughlin Stoi
Page 15 and 16: 17. Lead Counsel prosecuted the lit
Page 17 and 18: [T]his representation has been unde
Page 19 and 20: and the necessary involvement with
Page 21 and 22: case. The Court hereby awards attor
Page 23 and 24: published an article, “Enron Jolt
Page 25 and 26: statements. We compiled profiles on
Page 27 and 28: 34. We had no way of knowing whethe
Page 29 and 30: which witnesses to pursue, but cont
Page 31 and 32: the market in October 2001. The ana
Page 33 and 34: said it was unable to determine whe
Page 35 and 36: depositions because discovery was p
Page 37 and 38: 65. After the motion was filed, The
Page 39 and 40: institutional plaintiffs, their rep
Page 41 and 42: drawing on the expertise of our in-
Page 43 and 44: 83. On May 3, 2002, the Preferred P
Page 45 and 46: finance certain of the partnerships
Page 47 and 48: and participated in a scheme to def
Page 49 and 50: (j) Arthur Andersen LLP (Docket No.
Page 51 and 52: Lead Plaintiff had adequately alleg
Page 53 and 54: (a) The Court ruled that Lead Plain
Page 55: director of New Power, and issuance
Page 59 and 60: mandamus review, and that the Court
Page 61 and 62: 106. On May 6, 2003, defendant Citi
Page 63 and 64: scheme, and certain specific allega
Page 65 and 66: pled with the requisite particulari
Page 67 and 68: Merrill Lynch and Deutsche Bank Ent
Page 69 and 70: 4. Motions to Intervene Additional
Page 71 and 72: Gramm, Jaedicke, LeMaistre, Meyer,
Page 73 and 74: professionals and experts, and atte
Page 75 and 76: 121. On May 7, 2003, the Outside Di
Page 77 and 78: of Enron’s prominence and magnitu
Page 79 and 80: 131. As part of discovery, Lead Cou
Page 81 and 82: Third Parties and Defendants Date S
Page 83 and 84: Third Parties and Defendants Date S
Page 85 and 86: 133. Document requests and subpoena
Page 87 and 88: 139. In responding to the document
Page 89 and 90: 146. In addition to JPMorgan’s in
Page 91 and 92: 10. Requests for Admission 152. In
Page 93 and 94: Protocol Order provided for the ord
Page 95 and 96: privilege. And the defendants agree
Page 97 and 98: Deponent Entity Date[s] Location No
Page 105 and 106: promptly responded to all discovery
Page 107 and 108:
Enron securities, and questions con
Page 109 and 110:
securities, understanding of a repr
Page 111 and 112:
187. Lead Counsel made further supp
Page 113 and 114:
April 16, 2004, Lead Counsel filed
Page 115 and 116:
195. On April 13, 2004, defendants
Page 117 and 118:
Plaintiffs’ Investors Partner Lif
Page 119 and 120:
• Outside Directors’ Memorandum
Page 121 and 122:
208. A two-day hearing was held reg
Page 123 and 124:
Expert Entity Area of Opinion Dorri
Page 125 and 126:
and is the basis for a presumption
Page 127 and 128:
nature of Enron’s financial condi
Page 129 and 130:
economically valid method and frame
Page 131 and 132:
primarily involving Deutsche Bank,
Page 133 and 134:
We filed a notice of request for se
Page 135 and 136:
236. Bankruptcy Examiner Batson him
Page 137 and 138:
egarding the §11 claims, which wer
Page 139 and 140:
proceeds for our settlement. Thus,
Page 141 and 142:
egarding the policies and he moved
Page 143 and 144:
team; for example, we reviewed info
Page 145 and 146:
Court ruled that Lead Plaintiff fai
Page 147 and 148:
Opposition to Deutsche Bank’s Mot
Page 149 and 150:
Sec. Litig., 443 F.3d 987 (8th Cir.
Page 151 and 152:
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion
Page 153 and 154:
dated June 5, 2006 as It Pertains t
Page 155 and 156:
the Pleadings (Docket No. 5019). On
Page 157 and 158:
joint-and-several liability for kno
Page 159 and 160:
pricing or trade volume data, estim
Page 161 and 162:
y the court and cited in In re Cend
Page 163:
296. Attached hereto as Ex. 2 is a
Page 166 and 167:
ADDITIONAL SERVICE LIST Stuart Yoes
Page 168 and 169:
ENRON COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN
Page 170 and 171:
Name Title Hours Rate Lodestar Meye
Page 172 and 173:
ENRON - SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFFS' FIRM
Page 178:
EXHIBIT 4
Page 182 and 183:
TOP SECURITIES SETTLEMENTS Case Nam
Page 184 and 185:
Exhibit Listings and Notes regardin
show all

Declaration Of Helen J. Hodges In Support Of Lead Counsel's ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?